"How does ________ have power over you except through you?"
In 1548, Etienne de La Boetie asked the above question in his essay, "Discourse on Voluntary Servitude," though with the blank space occupied by "he," the tyrant. Why I wrote it out as such is because I feel this question can be asked of a number of things to which people voluntarily give power to.
The young scholar (he was only 18!) reveals the emergence of a protoliberalism in France. He writes of the absurdity of the facts. Of tyrannical rule, he asks how it is that one man may deprive the commonwealth, which is comprised of hundreds of thousands and even more, of their liberty. It seems non-sensical, yet in many places there exist a mass of people who obey a tyrant. In lecture, this was related to Americans and our being "okay" with having many liberties and equalities deprived by our government. For the most part, Americans are cowardly and/or ignorant. (Did I just say that?! Yes.) I think that when oppressed groups fight for equality, small steps are taken toward eliminating injustices within our nation's infrastructure (economically, racially, sexually, etc.), but the BIG step of revolution will not come without the uniting of all classes, races, sexes, and so on. This, though, is extremely difficult, for why would those on the more privileged end want to relinquish their privilege at the uncertain outcome of "liberty for all?" (Sound eerily familiar? Something to think about...)
In La Boetie's framework of thought, liberty is a right to which men can have but do not as the majority voluntarily chooses otherwise. "It is the stupid and cowardly who are neither able to endure hardship nor to vindicate their rights; they stop at merely longing for them, and lose through timidity the valor roused by the effort to claim their rights, although the desire to enjoy them still remains as part of their nature." He goes on, "Liberty is the only joy upon which men do not seem to insist; for surely if they really wanted it they would receive it. Apparently they refuse this wonderful privilege because it is so easily acquired." Not simply stupidity nor cowardice are obstacles, but unwillingness to step out of a comfort zone. Comfort is key. Most people like to stay where they are, stay how they are, and stay why they are. That sentence makes no sense whatsoever and yet it makes all the sense in the world... Do you agree? Yes, there are the world travelers, cultural explorers, risk takers, but they are not a part of the majority (and at least the mind's of the majority must be altered for any major changes can come about). Most people fear change and find comfort in what they know. But what is it that people know? We all know what we were raised up with, what our history is, what our daily lives consist of... but this knowledge is founded upon one's particular perspective, which is but one among others. For revolutionary change and thus liberation, consciousness must be expanded in that people become aware of the social inequalities of our country, because most people are not. To start, consciousness must be expanded so that people understand that many perspectives exist besides their own and that each is contextual/positional. To clarify, when I mention context, I mean the circumstances which engender a particular perspective; how dare anyone who says they are thinking contextually of globalism's with ideas like, "Despite the horrible conditions, the workers are getting paid better than others in their area.") The larger picture of worldwide freedom of individuals must always be wrestled with.
It is extremely trying to imagine a new way of life, of course. But one ought to try, to imagine being free and equal. One cannot jump out of the paradigm of thought which is familiar, but with education and learning the experiences of others, one can begin to stretch it, expand it, open it up, and with such, let in new ideas of love and liberty.
baratheonpilled
romaincrisis
ellievsbear
snowghoul
